Elizabeth Warren is riding high, raising tens of millions of dollars and serving as the designated warm-up speaker for Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in early September. But she’s still an ethnic fraud who misappropriated Native American heritage as her own for professional purposes.

The only question approaching the convention is whether Warren’s wealth and power can drown out the truth.

And the truth keeps getting worse for Warren, as new evidence demonstrates the falsity of her claim that her parents were forced to elope because her father’s family rejected her mother due to her mother being part Cherokee and part Delaware.

Nonetheless, Warren claimed to be Native American, specifically Cherokee, for professional purposes in a national law faculty directory, at Penn. and Harvard Law Schools for federal reporting purposes, and at Harvard when she was a visiting professor when she was listed in the Women’s law journal as a “woman of color.”

None of the above facts were known when The Boston Herald broke the story in late April that Harvard had promoted Warren as a Native American hire in the late 1990s. Over time, as more and more facts were uncovered showing that Warren had created a professional narrative of being entitled to minority status, Warren’s campaign and Warren herself fell back on a familiar refrain — that Warren simply was repeating family lore.

Warren expanded on that lore in a series of interviews in which she claimed that being Native American was how she was raised and who she was. Warren pointed to one aspect of that lore in particular, that Warren’s parents had to elope in 1932 because her father’s family would not accept her mother because her mother was part Cherokee and part Delaware. Warren claims that the family tensions were so great that the problem persisted through her mother’s death in 1995.

I have been unable to find an instance of Warren telling this story of her parents elopement prior to May of this year. It is a story as to which everyone with firsthand knowledge now is dead and cannot contradict her.

Yet not a single family member of Warren who would have the same second-hand knowledge has come forward to back her up. To the contrary, an adult nephew in 2002 described the claims of Native American ancestry as being rumor.

There are, however, documents recently uncovered by the Cherokee genealogical group which cast serious, if not conclusive, doubt on Warren’s elopement story. This is the same Cherokee group which has traced Warren’s ancestry with great detail, and demonstrated that Warren’s mother and her mother’s ancestors always were listed as White on census forms and all other known documentation.

Warren’s parents were married in 1932 in a church not far from their home town by a respected and prominent pastor, who was unlikely to have performed ceremonies for runaways seeking to elope. The witness on the marriage certificate was a family friend of Warren’s mother, not some stranger rounded up by the pastor at the last minute for an unexpected elopement.

The young couple then immediately returned home where their marriage was announced in the local paper in a celebratory fashion, with extensive descriptions of the prominence of the two families in the local business community. Perhaps most important, the announcement mentions that the marriage was a surprise to many of the young couple’s friends, but said nothing about it being a surprise to family.

The marriage of Donald Herring and Miss Pauline Reed, two of Wetumka’s most popular young people, came as a surprise to many of their friend when they returned from Holdenville late Saturday afternoon and announced their marriage.

Both of the young people were reared in Wetumka and are popular members of the younger set.

Specifically as to Warren’s mother, the announcement detailed:

Mrs. Herring is the daughter of H.G. Reed, building contractor of this city, and has always been prominent in the social and church activities of the younger people and being a gifted singer has identified herself with the music lovers of the community.

The announcement then indicated that the couple are returning separately to their respective colleges for the next semester, and concluded:

The Gazette joins a host of friends in wishing for these young people a long and happy life together.

Barnes correctly asks:

If Ms. Warren’s parents eloped due to her mother being “Cherokee and Delaware” and it was such a disgrace, why did they rush back to Wetumka the same day they were married and proudly announce it to everyone? If there was shame associated with the marriage and it caused so many problems, why was it happily announced in the local paper and why did the town seem to celebrate the marriage of the two popular young people? Though a surprise to their friends, the excitement and happiness that seemed to show in the announcement makes one think it may have been a small ceremony typical during the Great Depression.

The joyful marriage announcement is not consistent with the story told by Warren of a family torn apart because her mother was Native American.

Nor is later evidence uncovered by the Cherokee group showing that Warren’s mother was not rejected in the father’s family. Warren’s mother attended the 25th wedding anniversary party for Warren’s paternal grandparents in 1936, just four years after the supposed elopement.

Because the events took place in a time and place where there was scant documentation of life, and because all the persons with first-hand knowledge were long dead by the time Warren told the story publicly, we cannot know conclusively about the circumstances of Warren’s parents’ marriage.

But what we can know is that the dramatic story told by Warren is inconsistent with the wedding announcement in the local newspaper.

Read that joyous announcement and listen to Warren’s story telling, and then ask yourself whether you believe the local newspaper at the time or Elizabeth Warren today.

As bad as it is–not even including the shoddy (or worse) “scholarship” as well as the natural affinity for Occupy criminals–Warren still has a great shot at becoming a US senator from MA. After all, it isn’t like MA isn’t used to criminals representing them in the Senate.

The other night I commented–pleasantly, I thought–on a story at Media Matters’s site. OMG! It was like an allergen, releasing dozens of yapping antibodies to attack. They were vicious, angry, and vile—impervious to anything from outside the echo chamber. I was repeatedly told how stupid I was and demand was made to know which “screechmonkey”‘s words I was parroting.

Nothing true about Warren’s past or present will matter to Lizzie’s ideological kin, because all they’re concerned with is that the future doesn’t belong to us nazis on the right.

I liked your comment, but wanted to add a good antidote to being called “Nazi” by Libtards:

NAZI = National SOCIALIST German Workers’s Party

Hitler, like Mussolini, was a Socialist. The origin of the term “Fascism” from Wiki:

“The term fascismo is derived from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate.”

“The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.”

Unity. Not Individualism.

Political scholar Robert O. ‘Paxton sees fascism as “a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”‘

Does that sound like Media Matters commentators to you…?

It sure does to me. Any time a Libtard calls you “Nazi” or “Fascist” … HIT BACK WITH FACTS. (They have no defense for those pesky things….)

People can either believe what they see or see what they believe. Same with hearing. Facts and logic mean nothing. Those people inside that bubble will always hear and see what they believe, and disbelieve everything else.

Only one little problem. The Nazis weren’t socialists. Yes, I know, Jonah called them socialists, and they used the word “socialist” in their party name. But are the Democrats really democratic these days, and is Obama really a post-racial, uniter, or centrist? He and his party have claimed all of these things. Since they use the words, they must be true, no? No. 😉

So, yes, the trivia about where the word Nazi came from is rhetorically useful in terms of encouraging people to question what else they know, but -no- they weren’t socialists.

Sorry for the threadjack, but this is a bit of a hot-button for me, not unlike gun owners who twitch when people insist on calling a magazine a clip, or a mech soldier hearing a civilian a Bradley a “tank.”

None of you are considering as corroborating evidence that Joe Biden has stated repeatedly that his father told him about the elopement. Joe remembers it was right before his father told him “to get to know a man, learn his budget” and right after he was told that his grandfather had dreams of being just as rich as those evil republicans. Uncle Joe has never forgotten that talk.

Judging by how unscathed Biden has emerged from revelations about him that would have sunk any other politician—plagiarism, lying about his life, lying about his academic career, lying about lying, absurdly embarrassing verbal gaffes, yet more lying, etc.–that bus you’re talking about is likely not to leave a mark on him. He’ll just jump up, laugh about it, and pretend he was promoted.

Biden serves two useful purposes.
He keeps the heat off of Obama.
He allows the Media to criticize him and show their bi-partisanship without doing damage to the Annointed One.
Any damage that Joe Biden does to the ticket has already been factored in back in 2008. And besides, he has never said or done anything as truly dangerous as spelling Potato wrong.

Elizabeth Warren has simply invented the purported “family tensions” over her grandmother’s heritage or bloodline.
However, the couple did scoot off and get married; if not a mad dase to Gretna Greene with family in hot pursuit, it is a SORT of elopment, which is where the germ of her story originates.

“Friends” FWIW, has a (rather archaic then, but still used in certain contexts such as this one) broader meaning that is inclusive of family relations as well as unrelated persons who know the couple. The meaning here is more likely similar to that in this famous example:

Friends in this context can certainly mean, and probably does, that set of persons, including family, who know and love and are connected to the couple, not simply their “buddies” who live in the same apartment building and sit in coffeehouses with them.

“His first object with her, he acknowledged, had been to persuade her to quit her present disgraceful situation, and return to her friends as soon as they could be prevailed on to receive her, offering his assistance, as far as it would go. But he found Lydia absolutely resolved on remaining where she was. She cared for none of her friends; she wanted no help of his; she would not hear of leaving Wickham.”

I don’t know if this hold up as accurate seeing that Lydia was visiting friends when she eloped with Wickham. If that friend could be persuaded to receive Lydia at her house, and Lydia could be persuaded to return, then the whole story could be covered up, except for a few whispers from military men which might not reach the ears of the wider society and so put Lydia and her family outside the pale.

You are forgetting that particular detail and the impact Lydia’s type of behavior would have on her family’s social standing and on her sister’s prospects. So, in this case, “friends” means “friends.”

A more recent example, from A Condensed History of HopkinsTownship by Lena B. Martin, 1952:

James E. Parmelee emigrated with his parents to Clay County, Ind., from Ohio whenhe was three years old. After a brief residence in Indiana his father died and the mother determined to return to her friends in Ohio [emphasis added]

This is absurd. You provide no context. You provide nothing that would inform about whether there were existing family members. In this example, “friends” merely would mean a community in which the individual’s family has connection and history, and “friends” would be those who are bound by the obligations to the person’s family, be they social, debt, love, whatever, and which would move them to offer assistance in times of trouble though they may not know the person. It would go like this, “I knew your mother/father/grandmother, and they helped me, so of course….”

You have not made your case because, unlike your claim, you don’t cite any newspapers. Instead, you cite Pride and Prejudice and a history book.

What is more likely in Warren’s case is that the announcement was sent to the newspaper by her family and that both families concurred on it.

Given this was the Depression and they were both college students, it is quite possible that both or one of the families were not supportive. But not for the reason Warren gives. Instead, Depression era people valued a college education as the route to advancement and a man’s ability to provide for his family as highly desirable. Therefore, they would have seen a young marriage as something that could derail the young couple’s life and would likely have protested against it. Also, since it was the Depression, no big wedding cuz you don’t want to spend money to feed the riff-raff and the hoi polloi.

Just the fact that the “fake Indian” has a speaking gig at the democrat convention is proof that virtually all democrats have no shame.

They openly embrace the bizarre and criminal acts that go far beyond the level of public acceptance. They spend our money like drunken teenagers. They just have no shame and this my friends is a sign of the future if they are allowed to continue these practices unabated.

Thank you for this post. It is a good example of just how many lies Elizabeth Warren tells.

How people who call themselves liberals can continue to support this person for the Senate is beyond my comprehension.

Don’t liberals realize that Elizabeth Warren has made affirmative action into a joke? How is this person helping anything? She is not a plus for the cause.

The fact that the Massachusetts Dem Party leadership decided to go with EW as a candidate when there were other far more experienced, qualified, and vetted Democrats out there is a disgrace, and Masachusetts voters should not be expected to clean up their mess.

————-

So now Elizabeth Warren has been exposed as lying about the circumstances of her parents’ marriage.

Of course I knew from the start that she was lying when she told that tale: her lips were moving.

No one would care if she, Elizabeth Warren, wanted say she was part Martian, if she were just a regular civilian. But she is not. She is a US Senator, who is en elected govt official, thus is voted on by the voters of State, her constituency, thus her credibility and character come into play, for which her unsubstantiated, thus unfounded claims of he Native American Cherokee heritage is a serious issue of contention.

Normal American citizens who want to be hired for a particular job, must be scrutinized the same way she is being scrutinized. But liberals for some reason, and we all know why, believe they do not have to follow the same scrutiny, criticism, and standards hat the rest of us average Americans have to, by proving your allegations and claims with facts of evidence, not rumors, heresay, and so called family folklore.

This is why she has no credibility, honor, respect, and
integrity as Elizabeth Warren the person, thus she will be judged by that assessment of character, or lack thereof, by the voters at the ballot box.

This is what this all comes down to, her attempt to convince voters, aka the public, that she is not a liar to get their vote so she can stay in power, even though she has no concrete evidence to prove her claims.

Easy mistake to make. After all, she is running for the “Kennedy” seat and she is entitled to it since she is nothing if not “Kennedyesque”. In fact, it really seems Unfair that she has to run for it at all. Can’t President Obama name her Mass. Senate Czar or something?